Connect with us

உலகம்

Slavery reparations are just, but who exactly owes whom?

Published

on

Some African elites benefited from slave trade and colonisation. This must be taken into account in reparation debates.

On March 25, the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution. Proposed by Ghana, it recognised the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations. A total of 123 countries supported the resolution; three opposed it, including the United States and Israel, while 52 abstained, Britain among them, and several European Union countries.

The UN’s slavery resolution is a historic moment, but what comes next is even more important. Leading up to the resolution, the African Union urged its 55 member states to pursue slavery reparations through formal apologies, the return of stolen artefacts, financial compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition.

This raises a question the resolution does not directly ask: reparations from whom, and to whom? If the answer is simply from European governments to African governments, then the reparations movement risks ignoring the long history of European engagement with Africa, and in doing so delivering justice to the wrong people.

The contemporary framing of the reparations debate is seductive in its simplicity: Europeans arrived in Africa, Africans were enslaved, Europeans grew rich, and Africans became impoverished. Therefore, Europe owes Africa. This narrative carries moral force, but it risks flattening the complex history of European engagement with the continent.

While European actors undeniably drove the demand for enslaved labour, African political and economic elites were not passive victims. They played a significant role in capturing, transporting and selling enslaved people to European traders.

In some cases, African states, seeking to expand their treasuries and consolidate territorial power, preyed on neighbouring communities, condemning them to enslavement for profit. The Oyo Empire, a powerful Yoruba state in what is now south-western Nigeria, expanded significantly in the eighteenth century through its participation in this commerce. Across the region, African elites who had the means sustained the system by exchanging enslaved people for European goods such as alcohol, textiles and other manufactured commodities.

None of this diminishes European culpability in the slave trade. The demand was European. The ships were European. The plantation system was European. The racialised ideology constructed to justify slavery was European. But it does complicate the story.

The transatlantic slave trade was not solely a narrative of African victimhood and European perpetration. It is a story of elite collaboration, which did not end when the slave ships stopped sailing.

The historical argument: three phases, one logic

European encounter with African societies can be understood in three broad phases, each distinct in form but similar in the underlying logic of collaborative extraction.

The first phase was slavery. Europeans extracted human labour from Africa, often with the active participation of African political rulers. Britain emerged as the world’s leading slave-trading country, transporting roughly 3.4 million Africans across the Atlantic between 1640 and 1807. The abolition of the British slave trade in 1807 marked the formal end of this phase. But abolition did not disrupt the underlying logic of the elite collaboration. It reshaped it.

The second phase was colonialism. A less understood aspect of European domination in Africa is how seamlessly some African rulers transitioned from collaborators during the slave trade to intermediaries in the colonial period.

In Nigeria, for example, regional African rulers became intermediaries for British administrators. As Nigerian historian, Moses Ochonu, demonstrates in Emirs in London, a study of Northern Nigerian Muslim aristocrats who travelled to Britain between 1920 and independence in 1960, these African figures were far from passive subjects of British rule. They actively leveraged their relationship with British authorities to reinforce their own authority at home. Such sponsored travel to the imperial centre helped solidify personal ties between Nigerian elites and British administrators, reinforcing the system of indirect rule.

The third and current phase is the postcolonial era. While formal empire has ended, the structure of elite alignment endures. In countries such as Nigeria, the majority of citizens remain largely excluded from political and economic power. The institutional successors of intermediaries and collaborators during the eras of slavery and colonial rule are now running the African postcolonial states.

Rather than dismantling extractive systems, many have repurposed them. Similar patterns of exclusion and extraction that defined earlier periods have been reproduced, leaving the majority of Africans short-changed by a system that continues to serve elite interests.

Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s state visit to the United Kingdom last month – complete with royal ceremony, photo opportunities and symbolic gestures – reflected this relationship whose origins lie in the very history the UN resolution condemns. While the majority of Nigerians face difficult socio-economic conditions, the British government announced that Nigerian companies would create hundreds of new jobs in the UK.

This is not an anomaly but a continuation of the extractive logic that shaped the slave trade and colonialism. It endures, now recast in the language of diplomacy and partnership.

Reparations are just, and Britain’s debt is undeniable. But direction matters. If compensation flows from one set of elites to another, the oppressed majority of Africans will once again be excluded. True justice must run in two directions: from European states to formerly colonised societies, and from African elites to the citizens they continue to exploit.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/4/18/slavery-reparations-are-just-but-who-exactly-owes-whom?traffic_source=rss

உலகம்

Hormuz: Spin in the Strait

Published

on

A fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran holds – but the information war intensifies. At the centre: the Strait of Hormuz, where competing US and Iranian narratives have collided.

During any truce, even when the bombs stop falling, the information war goes on.  Moments like this test journalism. Because the job is not just to report on the messaging coming from all sides – but to decode and debunk it if necessary.

Abeer Al Najjar – Professor of Media & Journalism, American University of Sharjah

Andrew Arsan – Professor of Arab & Global History, University of Cambridge

Alireza Doostdar – Associate Professor of Islamic Studies, University of Chicago

Nazila Fathi – Former Tehran Correspondent, New York Times

Israel’s relations with its European allies are fraying, with increasingly sharp rhetoric from both sides playing out across political and media platforms. Meenakshi Ravi reports.

The Iranian diaspora contains a wide range of often conflicting views. But judging by its representation in mainstream Western media, one might assume the dominant position is support for the war.

We speak to Narges Bajoghli about how diaspora voices are weaponised in coverage of Iran.

Narges Bajoghli – Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/video/the-listening-post/2026/4/18/hormuz-spin-in-the-strait?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

US blockade of Iran needs to end before the Strait of Hormuz is fully reope

Published

on

US blockade of Iran needs to end before the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened

Michael Shoebridge, Director of Strategic Analysis Australia, says the US may be forced to end its blockade of Iran in order to see the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/video/quotable/2026/4/18/us-blockade-of-iran-needs-to-end-before-the-strait-of-hormuz-is-fully-reope?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

Turkiye woos investors amid Iran war fallout in Gulf economies

Published

on

Turkish officials are promoting Istanbul as a regional financial hub amid the war’s fallout on the Gulf economies.

For Turkiye’s government, the Iran war has complicated efforts to turn around an economy still reeling from one of the worst financial crises in the country’s history.

But even as the conflict has driven up Turkiye’s fuel prices and forced authorities to dip into their precious foreign currency reserves to defend the lira, it has also presented an opportunity.

As the fallout of the war has reverberated across the Middle East, Ankara has jumped at the chance to promote Turkiye as a model of security and stability for businesses and investors.

While Iranian missiles and drones have inflicted significant damage on infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkiye, which is protected by NATO air defences, has emerged largely unscathed from aerial attacks blamed on Tehran.

Turkish officials have made little secret of their desire to capitalise on the shadow that the conflict – which is officially on pause until Wednesday under a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran – has cast over regional business hubs such as Dubai, Doha and Riyadh.

In remarks earlier this month, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who last month met with 40 global CEOs to discuss ways to boost his country’s competitiveness, cast the war as a boon to Ankara’s ambitions to transform Istanbul into one of the world’s leading financial centres.

“Just as in the pandemic period, we wholeheartedly believe that this global crisis, too, will open new doors before our country,” Erdogan said in a statement posted on social media.

Turkish Treasury and Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek confirmed soon afterwards that the government was preparing “radical” incentives to lure foreign capital.

Turkiye’s improving economic stability in the wake of its 2018 debt crisis and various financial incentives have helped to reposition the country as a regional hub and “safe haven”, said Bilal Bagis, head of the economics department at Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University in Istanbul.

“A liberal investment environment, ease of entry and new comprehensive incentive packages should help boost its position,” Bagis told Al Jazeera.

While Ankara has yet to confirm the measures in the pipeline, they are likely to involve tax breaks for companies that sell goods through Turkish entities without importing them into the country, said Guney Yildiz, a Turkish-born adviser at Anthesis Group who has clients in the Gulf.

“So you’d have a commodities trader or a logistics company booking transactions through Istanbul and getting a meaningful tax benefit for it,” Yildiz told Al Jazeera.

“That’s a direct play for the kind of intermediation business that Dubai has owned for two decades,” he said, adding that “the timing is obviously shaped by the war.”

Turkiye’s Ministry of Treasury and Finance did not respond to questions about the measures under consideration, but its plans follow a series of recent initiatives aimed at luring foreign investment, including the opening of the Istanbul Financial Center (IFC) in 2023.

The special economic zone offers tax incentives to financial institutions, including a 100 percent exemption from corporate tax on export earnings until 2031.

An IFC spokesperson said the district has recently seen “growing and concrete” engagement from both foreign governments and private institutions.

“There is a particularly strong strategic focus from Far Eastern institutions,” the spokesperson told Al Jazeera.

“This is not limited to private sector companies; we are also seeing engagement at the government level. We remain in close contact with Japan and South Korea, while our discussions with the United Kingdom continue,” the spokesperson said, adding that Istanbul has a “powerful triple advantage built on geography, innovation and economic depth.

“From Istanbul, institutions can reach around 1.3 billion people and a 30 trillion-dollar economy within a four-hour flight,” the spokesperson said.

Still, Istanbul faces a steep climb to seriously compete with hubs such as Dubai.

Istanbul currently ranks 101st on the latest Global Financial Centres Index, compiled by Z/Yen Partners in collaboration with the China Development Institute, far behind Dubai (7), Abu Dhabi (21), Doha (48) and Riyadh (61).

Turkiye’s economy has been plagued by double-digit inflation and a depreciating currency since the onset of the 2018 crisis. “The lira loses roughly a fifth of its value against the dollar every year,” Yildiz said.

“For a financial firm that earns in multiple currencies and pays staff in lira-denominated salaries, the math gets complicated fast. You’re constantly managing FX exposure in a way you simply don’t have to in a pegged-currency jurisdiction like the UAE or Singapore.”

Critics have also accused Erdogan’s administration of economic mismanagement by keeping interest rates low despite fears of inflation. But the government says the move is aimed at boosting the economy and ending foreign currency manipulation.

While the IFC has reported growing interest from firms, less than half of its office space has been filled, though officials say they expect occupancy to reach 75 percent by the end of this year.

“When we look at surveys of European firms with a subsidiary in Turkiye, their main complaints are unpredictability of economic policy, political instability, legal uncertainty, high bureaucracy, high inflation and imported inflation,” Meryem Gokten, an economist at The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“None of these issues can be resolved in the short term … Turkiye has not been a financial hub so far, and I do not see it becoming one without addressing these structural issues,” Gokten added.

Selim Koru, a doctoral researcher who specialises in public policy at the University of Nottingham, expressed similar scepticism.

“Part of Dubai’s attractiveness was that it’s a tabula rasa of sorts. There is no firmly established cultural, legal, political climate, and foreign parties can have a say in what they want it to be,” Koru told Al Jazeera.

“That’s not the case with Istanbul, or anywhere else in Turkiye, really.”

For some analysts, whether Istanbul can directly challenge Dubai is not the right question.

Hasan Dincer, a finance professor at Istanbul Medipol University, said Turkiye’s bid to draw investment from overseas should be viewed as a “gradual positioning rather than direct short-term competition”.

“In emerging financial systems, investor confidence is primarily driven by predictability, transparency,” Dincer told Al Jazeera.

“And the credibility of long-term economic policies initiatives, such as the Istanbul Financial Center, represent important strategic steps whose long-term impact will depend on sustained implementation and institutional alignment,” he said.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/4/18/turkiye-woos-investors-amid-iran-war-fallout-in-gulf-economies?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.